[K-Three]

LX was their only attempt at a "professional" camera?

Ahem, P6x7?

I know he meant in 35mm
but that is a huge misstatement.

[RobA_Oz]

LX was their only attempt at a "professional" camera?

Ahem, P6x7?

I know he meant in 35mm
but that is a huge misstatement.

The 645 cameras were a part of a professional system, too.

Given that we're prepared to concede that it was intended to apply only to the 35mm cameras, it's perhaps not too big an issue in that regard.

However, given that the K2DMD came as part of a system, as well (data back, 250-frame back and motor-drive) that could also be considered to be a professional camera. Certainly, when I bought mine secondhand in 1981, it was traded in by a professional photographer, and well-used (37 years later, it's still going, and with no service needed in the meantime). That, in the context of the statement applying to 35mm cameras, is probably a bigger misstatement.

[K-Three]

The 645 cameras were a part of a professional system, too.

Given that we're prepared to concede that it was intended to apply only to the 35mm cameras, it's perhaps not too big an issue in that regard.

However, given that the K2DMD came as part of a system, as well (data back, 250-frame back and motor-drive) that could also be considered to be a professional camera. Certainly, when I bought mine secondhand in 1981, it was traded in by a professional photographer, and well-used (37 years later, it's still going, and with no service needed in the meantime). That, in the context of the statement applying to 35mm cameras, is probably a bigger misstatement.

very true,
In most respects the K2 & DMD version was more of a predecessor to the LX than the MX was.
The KX and MX had a similar kinship.

[RobA_Oz]

very true,
In most respects the K2 & DMD version was more of a predecessor to the LX than the MX was.
The KX and MX had a similar kinship.

While the LX is a lovely thing, with its unique metering system and removable prism-viewfinders, I actually prefer using the K2DMD for many situations.

[Eyewanders]

While the LX is a lovely thing, with its unique metering system and removable prism-viewfinders, I actually prefer using the K2DMD for many situations.

I love my LX. But I don't trust my LX. Extremely intermittant circuit issues lead to random shutter freezes. Sometimes, often acutally, for whole roll it won't do it at all. And, sometimes it's every 6th or 7th shot. Makes me bonkers enough to bench the LX a lot of the time, despite how much I adore shooting with it. Strangely, with the LX winder it happens far, far less often (e.g. hardly ever). The weirdest thing.
I've always wanted to pick up a K2DMD, but hearing of similar electronic issues in it as well (likely using some of the same PCB and parts) I've stayed away from it. :-/

[RobA_Oz]

I love my LX. But I don't trust my LX. Extremely intermittant circuit issues lead to random shutter freezes. Sometimes, often acutally, for whole roll it won't do it at all. And, sometimes it's every 6th or 7th shot. Makes me bonkers enough to bench the LX a lot of the time, despite how much I adore shooting with it. Strangely, with the LX winder it happens far, far less often (e.g. hardly ever). The weirdest thing.
I've always wanted to pick up a K2DMD, but hearing of similar electronic issues in it as well (likely using some of the same PCB and parts) I've stayed away from it. :-/

Electronics of that era could often be mysteriously wonky. Its saving grace, however, is that much of it was discrete component electronics, so a degree of knowledge and experience could often help track down the fault (IME, mostly dry solder joints) and repair it. Thankfully, I’ve never had any such problem with my LX or K2DMD.

[TomB_tx]

I’ve used both Leica RFs and SLRs from the 1960s on. I’ve always preferred the Leica M models for general photography with 28 to 90 mm lenses, where they focus faster and easier, especially in dim light, or with imperfect vision. (I’ve worn glasses full time for 60 years, but can still focus an M quite well without them, but not an SLR.) I’ve also preferred Pentax & other SLRs for long lenses and close up. To each his own.

[Astro-Baby]

Strange how the supposedly non-prestigious Pentax has outlasted so many other cameras. The OM-1 was a lovely thing but the demise of mercury batteries has rather spoilt it. The Nikon F was a beauty but the Photomic heads can be problematic with age. I can't say for Leica as I never owned one but they were always a very expensive bit of kit. The Canon AE-1 was pure tinsel, lots of plastic and it handles badly in my opinion. Few 1970s SLRs have stood the test of time as well as Pentax hardware - they even got the mount right way back.

Out of all of the 70s cameras the older Pentax stuff seems to be the most durable of beasts and I wish mightily that I had bought an MX instead of the ME back in the day which might have given me a different perspective on Pentax and who knows I might have still owned it. Things may have been different in the US but the Pentax gear was always a premium brand here in the UK albeit lower priced than Nikons 'F' gear which was so expensive I used to wonder if it was dubbed 'F' as descriptive of its price.

I can't recall Pentax being significantly less expensive than Olympus or the prosumer end of Nikon like the Nikkormats and it was often touted in adverts as very much de-luxe.

'Professional' cameras is very much an opinion - lots of the press and others distrusted the OM-1 due to its small size which was given to mean light and therefore breakable so the OM-1 might not be considered a pro camera by some. I was a pro and some of my cameras included a pair of Fuji 605s which were solid and reliable little workhorses bought for a single assignment where there was a high degree of risk to the hardware and I wasn't going to risk my Nikons on a low paying job with salt spray all over the place.

[womble]

I love my LX and my MXs and have used both extensively. The black MX has an occasional slippage in the film advance which is a little annoying, the "chrome" one is perfect. The K2DMD is great too, but I really have to fight to change the ISO which puts me off using it too much (and yes, it was serviced recently). It may get the role of shooting 400ASA film only....!

[abruzzi]

Strange how the supposedly non-prestigious Pentax has outlasted so many other cameras. The OM-1 was a lovely thing but the demise of mercury batteries has rather spoilt it. The Nikon F was a beauty but the Photomic heads can be problematic with age. I can't say for Leica as I never owned one but they were always a very expensive bit of kit. The Canon AE-1 was pure tinsel, lots of plastic and it handles badly in my opinion. Few 1970s SLRs have stood the test of time as well as Pentax hardware - they even got the mount right way back.

The biggest issue is the Mercury battery, which fortunately Pentax built a better circuit than a lot of other cameras. Other than that every manufacturer had good and bad design decisions. For longevity, it seems Pentax’s big failure was in the 90s with the mirror gear that strips out. Nikons was the ring resistor in the Photomic heads of the F and F2.

'Professional' cameras is very much an opinion.

I think it’s best to think of professional as a target market. I’ve seen the argument on Photrio that famous professional so-and-so shot photos on a Holga, so Holgas are pro cameras as well. To me “professional cameras” are cameras with design, flexibility, reliability, and features intended to appeal to professionals. This doesn’t always mean the most features, Nikon usually tested features on their consumer line before migrating those features to the F series. It also doesn’t mean more reliable, but usually it is intended to be more reliable. The real world usually differs.

[Lord Lucan]

In the 1960s, .... Pentax was considered and marketed as an affordable brand.

I would say that in the 60's and 70's Pentax were aimed mainly at the mid-range market. For the "affordable market" there were brands like Practica, Petri, Cosina and (dare I say it?) Ricoh. The KM/K1000 was Pentax's pitch at the affordable market, and the MX, K2DMD (short-lived) and LX were pitched at the professional market, with limited success as we know. The MX had an amazing array of professional accessories but it was a Pentax misjudgement that the professional market would follow the amateur trend to small cameras, and even by then still did not want any auto mode.

[Astro-Baby]

Me - I would put pro cameras down as designed to take a battering and have a reasonably long life. I think I recall seeing somewhere years ago that a pro-SLR would hit 150,000 frames before any problems appeared. I can't say how true that was/is - I never owned a camera that got to even half that number before it was sold on or destroyed in user induced accidents.

[Russell W. Barnes]

I can't recall Pentax being significantly less expensive than Olympus or the prosumer end of Nikon like the Nikkormats and it was often touted in adverts as very much de-luxe.

When I bought my MX back in '81 - the camera I still use, incidentally - it was a toss-up between it and an Olympus OM-1, and there was much sucking through teeth and head-scratching before I committed to the Pentax. I chose the Pentax simply because a childhood friend of mine's dad was a pro photographer and the drawers and cupboards in their house spilled over with Spotmatics and other Pentax stuff, and the work he turned out was impressive.

I got to those two cameras because the prices were very similar indeed.

[grimnicholas]

Can anyone speak to these cameras and reliability as the years go on?

I'm undulating between an MX and LX though read mixed things, sounds very hit or miss in terms of them working!

LX for the system camera features and build, MX for the mechanical simplicity.

I have an ME, great little camera, but the meter can go haywire and as such a bit hard to trust.

[arnold]

Can anyone speak to these cameras and reliability as the years go on?

I'm undulating between an MX and LX though read mixed things, sounds very hit or miss in terms of them working!

LX for the system camera features and build, MX for the mechanical simplicity.

I have an ME, great little camera, but the meter can go haywire and as such a bit hard to trust.

Even the MX can fail. I bought mine in 1977 when they first came out, and a switch in the mirror box failed a few months ago. Parts have to come from Moldovia (can you believe it?) and shipped via sea (war precludes air). Have other MX's, so waiting for parts for this one, in Australia, is not a big issue. I also have a serviced LX and a near new K2. The ME Super I have still has a good meter, but the circuitry controlling the shutter is defective, and that is also the weakness of all electronically controlled cameras. If you want reliability, stick with cameras that will operated without electronics. It took over 50 years for my first MX to fail, but it will be good as new when it is fully restored and serviced. By the way, The KX and KM are well worth considering for reliability.